Reviews written by registered user
|130 reviews in total|
I believe this is the best of the four adaptations of the play/novel
Glenn Close plays Mertuil, who, with Malkovich's Valmont, manipulate and seduce others for entertainment. In comes Michelle Pfieffer's beautiful Madame de Tourvel, whose husband is off at a trial (or something to that extent). Valmont realizes what a capture it would be if he were to succeed in seducing her, and making her forget all her vows of fidelity. Uma Thurman also has a smaller part, one of those who was seduced by Valmont.
Uma Thurman is great, Michelle Pfieffer is exquisite, but it's Close and Malkovich who dominate the screen. Close's mercilessly cunning character has most of the great lines. When asked if betrayal is her favourite word, she replies, "No. Cruelty is. It's much more nobler, don't you think". Malkovich plays a Machiavellian character you lies and cheats to get what he wants
The climax is thrilling, and the finale is incredible. Glenn Close's performance was certainly worthy of the Oscar nomination, and maybe the award. It is her best performance.
This film has everything a crime film should have: a great cast, an
incredible story with lots of twists and turns.
I have heard all sorts of things about the final twist, but, if one thinks about it, it does not make sense according to some parts of the story. However, it does to make sense in most of the story, so it is no bother.
The acting is uniformly great, with Kevin Spacey given a standout performance that deserved the oscar it won. The script, however, is not so lucky. Originally, it was too long, and didn't leave the reader with much to figure out. Editing did a good job of getting rid of the useless scenes. The script on film was good, but not as joyously original as Toy Story or Carrington.
Comparisons abound between this film and LA Confidential. While they both feature Kevin Spacey, and both have incredible gun-battle climaxes. But these are two completely different films, and both deserve to be seen
The best word to describe this movie is 'cool'. While not especially
descriptive, it is hard to come up with another word to describe the thrill
ride you've just been on.
The plot has something to do with the Matrix, a computer-something-or-other. This film is really not about plot. It is about visual techniques. And boy, does it fascinate. The bullet photography and the fight scenes are done incredibly well, the settings very stylish.
I will see this film again, and with try to understand more about the "plot", but the visuals make this film worth watching more than once.
According to my friends, I am not a true X-phile (don't ask why). Oh
The X-Files ranks as one of the most intelligent and brilliant shows on television. It is a cinematic show, using techniques that are more associated with movies than the tv show (like the long unedited sequence in Triangle). Admittedly it was once a better show than it is now, but most episodes are minor masterpieces. But when it peaks, like with "Redux", "Triangle", and "One Son", it peaks like no other show has before.
It is completely unclassifiable. It is a mystery, a sci-fi, and sometimes self parody, and the show has several markedly sexual overtones (the cigarette smoking man). The sexual tension is what probably has attracted the most people. The byplay between Mulder and Scully is cool and reserved, yet you wonder exactly what there really thinking.
It pays homage to old shows, and movies as well ("Duel in the Sun", "Rope"). This show doesn't always give you what you want.
Though it has gotten more Hollywood-ish, it's a testament to the creators and writers that they haven't put Scully and Mulder together (will they or won't they? Probably. It is Hollywood, after all).
This show is a thinking person's show. Sometimes it does get slow, but it always remains interesting.
I really can't say that I enjoyed this film, but can't dismiss it
One of the major faults this film has is that we don't sympathize with any one of the characters. It's too difficult. These are not happy people. While they are interesting, we just don't care if they make the 'right' or 'wrong' choices. The story itself is not much of a plot but a series of events that have only time connecting them.
The actors are fine, especially Joan Allen and Sigourney Weaver. They manage to convey everything through their faces. Christina Ricci and Kevin Kline also deserve mention for their brave performances.
The cinematography is also great, especially with the Ice Storm. I don't think this film was snubbed at the oscars, as some people do. It is simply not a film for everyone.
To me, there are two definitions of the word classic, as pertaining to
films. The first is a movie with great acting, plot, etc. The second is
idea, or an "important" first that breaks new ground. Philadelphia belongs
to the second group, because it portrays AIDS and homosexuality, two things
that were not common to films before. It features great acting, and an
incredible song score.
It falters, though, for the lack of insight between Hanks' and Banderas' relationship, the suprisingly supportive family Hanks has, and the last minute melodramatic ending.
This is a film that people, especially film buffs, should see, but I doubt one will see it more than once.
I was surprised that people thought this film was average, or so-so. I
found it to me a movie that was so much fun to watch.
Starts out live-action, than it seagues into stop-motion animation. Some of the scenes are very memorable (the pirate attack) and the voices are delightful. Not as good as Nightmare Before Christmas, but every bit as imaginative.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The movie follows are young, ungainly girl (de Havilland), after a cruel
father (Richardson) torments her, and threatens to disinherit her. She
falls in love with Morris (Clift), who only wants to marry her for her
The climax ranks as one of the best scenes ever. Her steely eyes, the cries of Morris, her ascending the staircase, plus one of the greatest lines on film " Yes, I can be cruel. I have been taught by masters."
Olivia de Havillands performance is among the greatest of the forties.
As a note, 1949 had three of the greatest endings for film (White Heat, The Heiress, and The Third Man).
This movie is about The Boer War, and particularly what happens when the
British need a scapegoat for the killing of a German missionary and six Boer
(Dutch) prisoners. A fascinating and multi-layered film.
To call this a simple anti-British film, like someone pointed out, is simplistic and false. It uses real actions of people in a situation where the outcome could have two different endings. Remember, the soldiers aren't entirely innocent. They have killed, but it is war.
This, and incidents like these, were the turning point for countries in the commonwealth. It is nice to see it dramatized but not manipulative.
The actors are uniformly first-rate, with Edward Woodward and Lewis Fitz-Gerald giving the most impressive performances. The script received a deserved Oscar nomination, for suprisingly good dialogue. A first rate film, that remains so timely.
Wilder has proved time and time again his versatility and style. His
first major hit, Double Indeminty, was a precursor to a career which
includes heavy drama (The Lost Weekend) to comedy (Some Like it Hot).
The film noir, featuring incredible sex appeal between MacMurray and Stanwyck(who deserved an Oscar). From seeing the anklet, to when he brutally kisses her, to her icy stare, she is one of the sexiest females on film.
The story has been done many times since (Body Heat, The Last Seduction), but Double Indemnity stands head and shoulders above the rest.
|Page 6 of 13:||            |